Category: Consumer Complaints

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, held the Indian Railways liable for deficiency in service after finding that passengers with confirmed reservations found their seats occupied by unauthorized and ticketless passengers in the sleeper coaches.

In this case, the complainant, who was a senior citizen, filed a complaint against Indian Railway, as his confirmed booked sleeper class ticket on the Kanyakumari–Pune Express was occupied by unreserved and ticketless passengers.

The complainants contacted Ticket Examiner (TTE) and Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel but were unable to find any, then lodged complaints through the Rail Madad application, but despite assurances from railway authorities, no effective action was taken for a considerable period.

As the journey progressed, the overcrowding intensified, with passengers lying on the floor and beneath the lower berths, making it extremely difficult for the complainants to access the washrooms.

The complainants therefore approached the Kerala Consumer Commission seeking refund of the ticket fare and compensation for deficiency in service.

The Railways submitted that TTEs and RPF personnel attended the coaches at Tiruppur, Erode and Jolarpettai stations after receiving the Rail Madad complaints and removed unauthorized passengers. They further argued that the complaint was filed almost one year after the incident, suggesting that the complainants had approached the Commission only to obtain monetary benefits.

The Commission rejected the contention that the Ministry of Railways was an unnecessary party, observing that since the complaint related to deficiencies in railway services, the Ministry could legitimately be made a party to the proceedings.

The Commission noted that the complainant had produced tickets, Rail Madad complaint screenshots, and photographs showing severe overcrowding in the sleeper coaches. The photographs clearly showed passengers lying on the floor and under the berths, making it impossible for passengers with confirmed reservations to travel comfortably.

The Commission also noted that the Railways failed to produce any evidence or examine railway staff such as the TTEs to substantiate their claim that unauthorized passengers were promptly removed. The Commission noted that in such overcrowded conditions passengers who booked tickets could not have a safe and comfortable journey and that the Railways, being service providers, were bound to ensure proper arrangements for passengers. Their failure to do so amounted to deficiency in service.

The Commission found deficiency in service and directed the railway authorities to pay ₹50,000 as compensation and ₹25,000 as litigation costs to the complainants.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible. If you are looking for a solution to your complaints then file a complaint now!

If you are looking for legal advice to resolve a Travel Complaint, then Talk To A Lawyer now!

The Kerala Consumer Court has held a Photocopy shop owner liable for displaying misleading advertisement and charging an excess amount for photocopy from the complainant.

The complainant went to a shop named SKCL Big for taking photocopies. The shop had displayed an advertisement stating that photocopying services were available at 29 paise and 35 paise per copy. The complainant took 1203 photocopies but was charged 75 paisa per copy. After arguing with the opposite party, a reduced rate was provided and Rs. 840/- was charged from the complainant.

As per the complainant, he was charged Rs. 492 in excess of the rate as specified. Being aggrieved by this, the complainant approached the Kerala Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, asking for a refund of the excess amount.

It was submitted that the offer of photocopies at the rates of 29 and 35 paise is for taking more than 2000 copies of a document in double side pages. It was argued that the complainant had taken copies of three different documents and hence the offer was not applicable to them. It was further submitted that the cost of A4 sheet to be around 45 paisa and only 25 paisa is being collected towards charges for ink, electricity and labour.

The Commission observed that the advertisement does not mention at all any of the prerequisite conditions which will make a consumer eligible to avail the offer. It was observed that failure to mention any of the conditions in the advertisement makes it misleading which amounts to an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

It was further observed that as per the advertisement, the complainant should have been charged a sum of Rs. 348/- but was charged Rs. 840. Thus, the complainant was held entitled to a sum of Rs. 491 which was the excess amount. Thus, the complaint was allowed with the following reliefs: 1. Refund of excess sum of Rs. 491/- 2. Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony 3. Rs. 2,500 as costs.

A sum of Rs. 10,000 was also directed to be paid to the Legal Benefit Fund maintained with the registry of the commission towards reparation of loss and injury inflicted on the large number of consumers who are not identifiable. The opposite party was further directed to discontinue the unfair trade practice of displaying the misleading advertisement or any other similar advertisement.

If you have purchased a product or service and are not happy with the outcome, Voxya helps you take effective legal action against brands, all from the comfort and safety of your home.

File a complaint now

If you are looking for legal advice for a consumer case then you can Talk To A Lawyer Now!

The District Consumer Court in Medak Telangana, recently passed an order stating that starting a movie late because of commercial advertisements is a deficiency in service.

In a recent case, the complainant, who was an advocate, filed a complaint against PVR INOX Limited. The complainant booked two film tickets through the BookMyShow platform, which was scheduled to begin at 10:00 PM on March 15, 2025.

Instead of starting the movie at 10:00 pm, theater first showed advertisements and trailers from 10:00 pm to 10:09 pm. This caused a delay of about 9 minutes.

Because of the delay and the length of the movie, the show ended around 12:02 am. The complainant said this disturbed his planned work and caused inconvenience. Being aggrieved by this, the complainant approached the Telangana Consumer Court, asking for a refund of the ticket amount and compensation for mental stress.

PVR INOX Limited management stated that it is legally required to display advertisements before films under Public Service Announcements and government directives. It also cited its right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the complainant’s estimate of the film’s duration was incorrect, and the CBFC certificate stated the film’s duration to be 150.03 minutes.

The Commission noted that the movie ticket clearly mentioned the show time as 10:00 pm, but the film actually started around 10:09 pm because the theater showed advertisements first.

The Commission explained that government guidelines allow public interest messages to be shown before the movie or during the interval, but they should not delay the film beyond the time printed on the ticket. The time on the ticket creates a promise between the theater and the customer.

In this case, the delay was not caused by any technical issue or public message. The theater delayed the movie only to show commercial advertisements and earn more money. Because of this, the Commission said the theater was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The Commission directed to compensate of ₹5,000 for mental agony and inconvenience, pay ₹3,000 as litigation expenses. The Commission also directed to compliance with the order within 45 days, and failure to pay the compensation amount within the stipulated period will result in annual interest at 9% from the date of complaint until recovery.

If you have purchased a product or service and are not happy with the outcome, Voxya helps you take effective legal action against brands, all from the comfort and safety of your home.

File a complaint now

If you are looking for legal advice for a consumer case then you can Talk To A Lawyer Now!

The District Consumer Commission, Chandigarh, found SBI deficiency of service, as it overcharged the borrower when closing a home loan, despite the Banking Ombudsman’s recalculation instructions.

Complainant Dilbar Singh filed a complaint against State Bank of India, who took a home loan of ₹500,000 from the State Bank of India at a floating interest rate for a period of 15 years. He paid EMIs regularly through ECS.

After making payments for nearly ten years, he was informed that ₹4,57,325 was still outstanding. Upon reviewing his loan account, he claimed that the bank had charged interest at a rate higher than the agreed-upon rate. When his complaints were not addressed, he approached the RBI’s Banking Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman directed the bank to recalculate the loan account based on the applicable base rate and MCLR from the specified dates. In compliance, the bank credited ₹96,922 to the complainant’s account and issued a revised statement, showing the lower outstanding amount.

However, at the time of closing the loan on July 11, 2019, the complainant was asked to deposit ₹2,01,728 and was issued a “No Due Certificate.” The complainant stated that this amount was higher than the actual outstanding amount, so he approached the Chandigarh Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

The bank stated that interest was charged in accordance with applicable rules and that the account statement submitted by the complainant contained errors due to manual preparation, including repeated credit entries. According to the bank, these errors were subsequently rectified, a revised statement was issued, and ₹96,922 was refunded as per the Ombudsman’s order, so no additional amount was payable. The bank denied deficiency in service or unfair trade practices.

The Commission found that, following the Ombudsman’s direction, the bank had recalculated and deposited ₹96,922. The Commission also noted that the outstanding amount was ₹59,155 on June 27, 2019, which increased to ₹62,857 by July 11, 2019 (the date of loan closure). Despite this, the bank charged the complainant ₹2,01,728 when closing the loan. After examining the account details and calculations, the Commission concluded that the bank charged an excess amount of ₹41,949.

Consequently, the Commission partially allowed the complaint and directed the bank to refund the amount of ₹41,949 along with 9% annual interest from the date of recovery on July 11, 2019, and to pay ₹10,000 as compensation and litigation expenses within 60 days.

if you are unable to get any resolution from Bank even after informing them about fraud or unauthorised transactions then you should File a Complaint at Voxya.com to take legal action and approach consumer forum.

If you’re looking to hire a lawyer to file your case, click the given link – https://voxya.com/service/consumer-court-case

File a complaint now